Skip to content


Bb. Inderjit Kaur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ Petition No. 282 of 1967
Judge
Reported in[1979]119ITR254(P& H)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 34 and 34(1); Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227
AppellantBb. Inderjit Kaur
RespondentUnion of India (Uoi) and anr.
Appellant Advocate Ashok Bhan, Adv.
Respondent Advocate D.N. Awasthy, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....was outstanding against the petitioner, on receipt of which information she applied for the copies of the assessment orders some time in the first week of december, 1962. it is also alleged in the petition that these orders related to the assessment years 1944-45 and 1946-47 and were passed ex parte on the basis of 'best judgment assessment' in certain proceedings alleged to have been initiated under section 34 of the indian i......with the matter in para. 6. before him the only contention raised by the petitioner was that the service of notice under section 34(1)(a) was purported to have been made under order 5, rule 20, c.p.c. since a copy of the notice was not affixed on the outer door of the house in which the assessee was last known to have resided, the service was invalid. the commissioner in para. 6 of his order has observed that since the assessee could not be found and there was no one else empowered to accept the notice, the notice was affixed on the outer door of the house in which the assessee was last known to have resided and that a report to this effect was made by the notice server and. the inspector of income-tax. the serving officer was also examined on oath on 16th march, 1955, by the ito and.....
Judgment:

A.S. Bains, J.

1. This petition under arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 6th January, 1967, passed by the CIT, Patiala (respondent No. 1), under his revisional jurisdiction (a copy of which is attached with the petition as annex. 'D') and also against the order dated 21st February, 1956, passed by the ITO, A-III District, New Delhi (a copy, of which is attached with the petition as annex. 'B').

2. It is alleged in the petition that in November, 1962, an inspector of income-tax met the petitioner's husband and informed him that some demand was outstanding against the petitioner, on receipt of which information she applied for the copies of the assessment orders some time in the first week of December, 1962. It is also alleged in the petition that these orders related to the assessment years 1944-45 and 1946-47 and were passed ex parte on the basis of 'best judgment assessment' in certain proceedings alleged to have been initiated under Section 34 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, relating to escaped assessments. The petitioner filed revision petition before the CIT on 22nd January, 1963, and vide his order dated 6th January, 1967 (annex. 'C'), the learned CIT accepted the revision petition relating to the assessment year 1944-45 and cancelled the assessment. The revision petition relating to the assessment year 1946-47 was, however, dismissed by the CIT, vide his order dated 6th January, 1967, copy of which is attached with the petition as annex. 'D'.

3. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that proper service as required under the rules was not effected on the petitioner and that the impugned order was passed by the ITO behind the back of the petitioner and, hence, the same is illegal. He says that no attempt was made to effect service on her personally. Return has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In para. 7 of the return it is stated that after considering the report of the process server and examining him on oath, the ITO had rightly held that the petitioner had been properly served. In sub-para, (ii) of para 8 it is stated that the affixation was properly done by the process server on 26th March, 1955, after trying several times to contact the petitioner personally as reported by him in his report of service and stated by him on oath before the ITO. I have perused the order of the learned Commissioner, wherein he has dealt with the matter in para. 6. Before him the only contention raised by the petitioner was that the service of notice under Section 34(1)(a) was purported to have been made under Order 5, Rule 20, C.P.C. Since a copy of the notice was not affixed on the outer door of the house in which the assessee was last known to have resided, the service was invalid. The Commissioner in para. 6 of his order has observed that since the assessee could not be found and there was no one else empowered to accept the notice, the notice was affixed on the outer door of the house in which the assessee was last known to have resided and that a report to this effect was made by the notice server and. the inspector of income-tax. The serving officer was also examined on oath on 16th March, 1955, by the ITO and he deposed that since the assessee could not be found in spite of several attempts the notice was affixed on the outer door of the house in which the assessee was last known to have resided. The Commissioner has found as a fact that thepetitioner was properly served. The record shows that the first notice was sent on 25th March, 1955, and the final report was made on 26th March. 1955, probably due to the fact that the limitation period was going to finish on 31st March, 1955. There may be some defect in service of the notice, but in the circumstances of the present case, I do not feel inclined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner, according to her own showing, came to know for the first time in November, 1962, when the demand notices were sent to her. She filed a revision petition before the CIT, who has passed a very elaborate order after condoning the delay in the filing of the revision. He has also given some relief in respect of the assessment year 1944-45. It is a matter of common knowledge that our economy stands paralysed by the tax evaders and economic offenders. I do not think that any injustice has been done to the petitioner. She was properly heard by the learned Commissioner, who gave her relief as could be possible under the law. I do not think that this extraordinary jurisdiction can be exercised in this matter against the finding of the CIT that the petitioner was properly served.

4. Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //